"TTAB Comes To Boston" - April 9th at Boston University School of Law
The TTAB will visit Boston on the afternoon of April 9th to hear final argument in Factory Five Racing, Inc. v. Carroll Shelby and Carroll Hall Shelby Trust, Opposition No. 91150346, as part of a program co-sponsored by the Boston Patent Law Association and Boston University Law School. The hearing will be held in the Stone Moot Court Room at the law school, at 765 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, MA 02215.
The case involves Shelby's application to register the product configuration mark shown above, for automobiles. Factory Five alleges genericness, abandonment, fraud, failure to function as a mark, and collateral estoppel. Briefs and other pertinent papers may be found here at TTABVUE.
The hearing will be preceded by two presentations: Mark Robins of Nixon & Peabody (Boston) will review recent trademark decisions in the First Circuit, and Acting Chief Judge Gerard F. Rogers will discuss Accelerated Case Resolution (ACR) and TTAB procedural developments.
Following the hearing, yours truly will moderate a panel discussion regarding the Shelby case, the panel consisting of Amy Brosius of Fish & Richardson (Boston), Pamela Chestek of Red Hat, Inc. (Raleigh, NC), and Aaron Silverstein of Saunders & Silverstein (Amesbury). A reception will follow the panel discussion.
The program will run from 1:15 pm to 5:30 pm. Details may be found here. On-line registration is available at that BPLA link, or at the door beginning at 12:30.The registration fee for BPLA members is $100. For non-members, $120. Students may attend fee of charge, provided they sign up in advance (through me).
.
posted by John L. Welch @ 3/17/2010
3 comments
3 Comments:
Why is the Boston Patent Law Association dabbling in trademarks? Is this one of those situations where patent lawyers get the term "intellectual property law" confused with with the term "patent law"?
An attempt was made a few years ago to change the name to the Boston Intellectual Property Law Association, but it was shot down after several empassioned pleas about "tradition" made by some of the old fuddy-duddys who populate the patent bar. I, for one, am willing to start a Boston Trademark Law Association. Anyone else interested?
Trademark law has always been the red-headed stepchild of patent law. The USPTO as a whole was called the "Patent Office" and decisions by its chief, even on trademark issues, were published in the "Commr Pats."
The only solution is to divide the agency into two. Just like a few years ago, they divided the INS into a benefits agency and an enforcement agency.
This would also abolish the position of the Director. Each section is already headed by a Commissioner. Who needs a Director? The Director's office doesn't even adjudicate "petitions to the Director." Some of those have been delegated all the way down to a paralegal. They just kept the wording "petition to the Director" because it sounded better than "petition to the paralegal on duty."
Post a Comment
<< Home